New Law Means Illegal Downloaders Face Life Internet Ban

YourValentine wrote: "It's amazing how the music industry keeps telling us how they lose so much money to downloading when in fact they sell more than ever before"

Indeed.  And here's another link showing how sales are up in Canada too.  CD sales are down, but digital sales and vinyl sales are up.  Excellent article overall about "record store day" !!

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2010/04/17/record-store-day.html

I'll chime in here. I have never paid for a Green Day album in my life (although I did buy a few American Idiot singles on iTunes back in the day). I have never paid for a Muse album in my life.

That said, I just received my two tickets to a Green Day concert this summer. Each (bargain-priced) ticket cost more than an album, and the percentage of that money the artist sees is significantly higher. Not to mention that my wife and I always, always buy the overpriced t-shirts at concerts. We spent $70 for two Q+PR shirts and another $70 for two Nine Inch Nails "Wave Goodbye" shirts. I don't doubt we'll spend $70 on two Green Day shirts, but I'm such a fan of Green Day that I'll probably drop even more on other merchandise there. The band keeps virtually all of that money.

Tomorrow morning, Muse tickets go on sale. Am I buying two tickets to the Muse concert? Hellz yes. And I'm not going $20 lawn tickets there--we're going to be as close to the stage as is humanly possible for Muse. Each ticket will probably cost more than three albums. When there, we're probably going to drop in excess of $150 on multiple t-shirts and other merchandise, because my wife and I agree that Muse is the best band out there right now.

Now, if it weren't for illegal downloading, would I be going to either of these concerts? Green Day, who knows? They've been getting radio airplay for years; I've just never gotten around to seeing them live. I probably would have eventually anyway. Muse? Definitely not. I'd probably never have heard of them if not for BitTorrent.

So, you tell me. Who does illegal downloading hurt? Does it hurt the artists by exposing them to fans who will go spend money at their concerts by taking a few tenths of a cent per album sold out of their pockets? No, not really. It hurts the recording company executives, who take home 75-plus cents of every dollar earned on record sales, which is why the high-powered lawyers are all over it.

Of course illegal downloads hurt the artists! If we all acted like you there would not be any Muse or Green Day albums for you to grab for free. Before any artists can sell out a concert they must release their music to get a name. If we all stole albums there would not be any incentive for the business to release anything. Not to mention to give a promising artist a second chance when the first album does not hit the charts.  Of course the artists try to make up for album sales by selling high priced concert tickets and merchandise but the merchandise won't give a single new artist a chance to try out something new. I am not in favour of illegal downloads, I am just against legislation making special laws which allow them to censor website content under the pretense of protecting the music industry when in fact the music industry took years to understand the risks and chances of the internet and did not create new sales outlets.

YourValentine wrote:

"Of course illegal downloads hurt the artists! If we all acted like you there would not be any Muse or Green Day albums for you to grab for free. Before any artists can sell out a concert they must release their music to get a name. If we all stole albums there would not be any incentive for the business to release anything."

And what would be wrong with that?  In these days of myspace and satellite radio, you don't need a record deal to make yourself known.  If all the major record labels imploded, music wouldn't die with them.  The only people who would lose out would be the bean-counting executives.  The percentage of people finding music aside from mainstream radio is growing by the day.

If you're an artist signed to a major label, you get pennies of every record sale - not even a dollar.  The label used to be able to blackmail the artist like this, saying how they get exposure in exchange for not seeing the record sale revenue.  But nowadays, there are many more ways to market and gain notoriety.  If the major labels refuse to change their business plan, it will eventually be their demise.  The majority of people will see the light.

People who blame the record companies for illegal downloading are just looking for some nice way to get rid of the responsibility. But people don't download because the record companies are evil, they download because the Internet has made stealing so easy. Blaming "greedy" record companies, too high CD prices etc. is just a stupid excuse.

It is an odd situation how these days the average folks seem to be deciding on behalf of the artists what is good for them. They say "oh, but the artist only gets 2 dollars of that CD, the evil record company gets the rest" and so on but it is not our job to decide whether that situation is good for the artists. The artists decide that themselves, and they do not want their albums to be stolen; they are quite happy with the work that record companies do and many musicians have become millionaires because people bought their albums.

People also say how bands find new audience when people download, how the musicians benefit from the easy exposure, but they don't realise that those bands wouldn't even exist if everybody downloaded and there was no record companies. When you download you are essentially shooting yourself in the leg because there is less chance of good new bands coming up in the future. If you can't make a living by being a musician you won't be making music and there will be no new Muse or Green Day or whoever. Yes they make money now by touring too, but you can't sell out tours if you aren't already a quite famous band. And by the way concerts wouldn't cost so goddamn much these days if the bands didn't need to get that extra buck with touring that they lose when people steal the album.

Radiohead was able to give away their album for free and still make money from it because they were already a very famous and rich band and the album was highly anticipated. That situation does not apply for new or less well-known bands and it is not a stragedy that can work on a larger scale.

There's really no rational way to defend illegal downloading. Or would you want to do your work for free? Downloaders probably aren't interested in going to work every day and not get any paycheck, so why should that be the case for musicians. There was nothing wrong with the old situation where you saved up some money, went to a store and proudly bought a new record. Then everybody got what they wanted and it was fair. Now it's different and people blame record companies just because stealing has become too easy and they don't want to pay.

Well, being that CD prices are so high, I'm not surprised people download the stuff!

aion wrote:

"People also say how bands find new audience when people download, how the musicians benefit from the easy exposure, but they don't realise that those bands wouldn't even exist if everybody downloaded and there was no record companies."

So music didn't exist before record companies?

"And by the way concerts wouldn't cost so goddamn much these days if the bands didn't need to get that extra buck with touring that they lose when people steal the album."

Let's do some math here.  Let's be generous and say the band makes 1 dollar per record sold.  That's being incredibly generous, as it's usually much less than that when you're with a major label.  If you sell 50,000 records, that's 50 grand in the pocket.  Assuming you're a 5-piece band and you put out one record per year, who can live off 10 grand these days?  This is why musicians tour.  Again, picking easy numbers, let's say you play 50 gigs a year and play the venues that hold 1,000 people, charging 20 bucks a pop, that's a million bucks of revenue.  That's 20x the money you're making on record sales (minus all your expenses, of course).  But...

...most artists aren't on major labels.  They're with indie labels that give the artist much more on each record sale... say $5.  So let's say 3/4 of their 50,000 fans download the record.  That's 12,500 record sales, and the band pockets 62,500.  And a fair portion of the 37,500 fans who downloaded the album for free (who probably wouldn't have otherwise heard of the band if it weren't for the internet) will come to their shows and provide the band with far more revenue on ticket sales and merchandise than record sales ever could, even on an indie label.

"Now it's different and people blame record companies just because stealing has become too easy and they don't want to pay."

The record costs 15 dollars, and the big concert costs $100-1000, plus merchandise.  It definitely isn't an issue of not wanting to cough up the coin, my friend.

One of the articles says, "proponents say the measure will save jobs," which is absolute hogwash.  It will save a few record company executives' jobs, and will slightly help the best-selling artists who don't need the money to begin with.  But it won't really hurt the smaller artists in the end, because myspace isn't being shut down.  Anyone in favour of this kind of measure clearly doesn't understand how the internet and satellite radio are such incredible marketing tools.

Music existed long before record companies, and it will exist after record companies, too.

>>So music didn't exist before record companies?>>

Sure music existed, but we've had record companies as long as we've had rock'n'roll and people listening to music in a home environment. A few decades ago it was simply impossible for a band to record and release an album and become famous without a record company; now it's easier to record stuff and especially release on your own, but if you want to be a household name you still need a record company.

The math is unnecessary because like I said it's not our right to decide on behalf of the artists what is good for them. Artists are on the labels voluntarily, they choose to be there, and I don't see any of them leaving all record companies behind and then releasing their music for free on the internet because they would supposedly benefit from it. Artists themselves do not want their albums to be stolen, and the idea of horrible record companies was invented by the pirates as an excuse for the theft. Musicians don't promote that idea and quite to the contrary they seek to be on a record label.

>>The record costs 15 dollars, and the big concert costs $100-1000, plus merchandise.  It definitely isn't an issue of not wanting to cough up the coin, my friend.>>

The only difference is that you can't steal a concert ticket like you can download an MP3 file. If the same people could download concert tickets and T-shirts for free on the web they sure as hell wouldn't be paying for them.

>>But it won't really hurt the smaller artists in the end, because myspace isn't being shut down.  Anyone in favour of this kind of measure clearly doesn't understand how myspace and satellite radio are such incredible marketing tools.>>

You're overrating the power of myspace. There's nothing wrong with myspace, and it can help to start a career like with Arctic Monkeys, but they too preferred to be on a label instead of having their career on a website.

I'm so confused with this. So If people download music illegally they could get an internet ban? (IMO I think a few songs are ok but if its 100's then thats bad.Besides its much better to buy a C.D or itunes ect.) But should'nt that also apply to youtube & other sites as people(includeing myself) watch films & episodes of various tv shows for free on there when techincly it's illegal? Not saying I want this to happen but its sort of the same thing.

& also recording shows straight from the TV is actaully illegal....then why the hell do they make Vidio/DVD recorders for that sole purpose?

ILoveQueen20 wrote:

& also recording shows straight from the TV is actually illegal....then why the hell do they make Video/DVD recorders for that sole purpose?

Technically you could argue that, since you have already paid for your TV licence and / or your cable or satellite service, you have the right to record shows. You just dont have the right to distribute them, or show them to anyone else. Also, Video and DVD recorders can also be used to record home made stuff.

Aion, on most occasions, nobody lost any money - do you really think if people couldn't download music they would actually buy all the albums they have actually downloaded?

aion wrote:

"Sure music existed, but we've had record companies as long as we've had rock'n'roll and people listening to music in a home environment. A few decades ago it was simply impossible for a band to record and release an album and become famous without a record company"

Right, but that was then.  This is now.  Why is anything that happened a few decades ago relevant to today's music marketplace?

And who says being famous is a requirement for success or artistic satisfaction?  Technology has made it possible for musicians to make a living more than ever before.  Decades ago, it was far more rare for someone to be able to be successful in the music business without being famous, as there was little middle ground.  Broadband has more or less made the internet the new broadcaster in favour of TV and radio. And with its widespread diversity, you don't have to be known to the man on the street to be successful.

If the record companies decided to put their heads together with ISPs, they could create a business plan that requires internet users with high bandwidth usage to pay a tax that goes directly to the artists.  But instead they blame (and often launch lawsuits against) people for using the technology that is at their fingertips.  And when they win those lawsuits, the artists don't see a penny of it.

"I don't see any of them leaving all record companies behind and then releasing their music for free on the internet because they would supposedly benefit from it."

Then you simply haven't noticed.  Many of the biggest acts of the 90s now release their music for free - Nine Inch Nails, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, and Radiohead.  Trent Reznor and Billy Corgan have both openly stated their strong distaste for record companies now that they're in the privileged position of not needing them anymore.  And don't accuse them of biting the hand that feeds them.  Their art is what made them famous.  Their fans couldn't care less which company financed the project at the start.  The record company was simply the vehicle that was available at the time to spread their art - the only vehicle available at the time.

"If the same people could download concert tickets and T-shirts for free on the web they sure as hell wouldn't be paying for them."

Of course.  Do you as a consumer not look for a good deal as well?

"Musicians don't promote that idea and quite to the contrary they seek to be on a record label."

With all due respect.. you obviously don't know a lot of musicians then.  And I'm also guessing that you're not a musician, either.  Plenty of artists have no problem with their music being downloaded for free.  They see downloading as a form of marketing simply because their art is heard by people who otherwise may not have heard their art in the first place.  How's this for perspective - you currently see about 70% of your income, as you pay about 30% taxes back to the government.  How would you like it if you only saw about 10% of your income and someone else got 90%?  That's what the major label does to you if you sign to them.  Reason #967 why most artists go with indie labels.

Raf wrote:

"do you really think if people couldn't download music they would actually buy all the albums they have actually downloaded?"

Excellent point.  People download the music simply because it is available.

Sir GH wrote: Trent Reznor and Billy Corgan have both openly stated their strong distaste for record companies now that they're in the privileged position of not needing them anymore.  And don't accuse them of biting the hand that feeds them.
Would you bite the hand that feeds you?
Would you get down on your knees?

Sorry, couldn't resist the NIN lyrical reference.

About the only time you're really hurting a band by downloading their album instead of buying it is when the band releases the album on a label that they own, and those situations are rare. The rest of the time, you're not hurting the band much at all by downloading their music as opposed to buying it; you're hurting the record label. The highly-paid executives (and the even more highly-paid lawyers) just want you to think you're hurting your favorite artist. Truth is, many of them could not give less of a crap how you get their music so long as you listen to it and spend $50 a ticket to see them when they play an arena near you, as I just did for Muse.

Does anyone else remember the film industry's ad campaign a few years back designed to make you feel like a horrible person for downloading movies instead of paying to see them in a theater? The ads that had the gaffers, the prop guys and the PAs talking about how they're only going to make $12.00 an hour to work on their next movie because the studio was losing so much revenue to bootleggers?

Yeah, when the studio execs are making $12.00 an hour, I'll be worried about downloading movies doing harm to the film industry. Hell, the biggest thing harming the film industry right now is itself--if Hollywood were capable of making a movie that doesn't suck anymore, I'd gladly bend over, take it, and give the box-office jockey $12.00 a person to go see it. As it stands, I don't even download movies anymore--that's just how bad they are as of late.

Raf wrote: Aion, on most occasions, nobody lost any money - do you really think if people couldn't download music they would actually buy all the albums they have actually downloaded?
If you don't pay for it, you shouldn't be able to enjoy it - it's simple. It's not at all different situation from e.g. stealing a car. It's not alright to steal a car just because you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it. Or do you apply this logic in other places as well, let's say the supermarket?